.

231, A 22, 1994 701

Peo le . Manl l
*
G.R. No. 102140. April 22, 1994.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, .ROLANDO MANLULU AND DANTE

SAMSON, accused-appellants.

C iminal La ; E idence; Self-Defen e; Whe e acc ed in ke elf-defen e, he b den i hif ed him

e abli h b clea and c n incing e idence he la f l j ifica i n f he killing. B - ,
A .T .T
.I , .
Same; Same; Re i ie f Self-Defen e. T (3) - : (1)
; (2) ; ,
(3) .F - ,

,
.
Same; Same; A g n aimed a he acc ed, ih m e, i in fficien e nla f l agg e i n. H ,
,
A . A , , . F
- , ,
, .
Same; Same; Fligh i a ng indica i n f g il . F ,
.I ,
.A
. I
- ,
,

* FIR DI I ION.

702

702 C
A A D

Peo le . Manl l

.
C n i i nal La ; Sea che and Sei e ; Wa an i e i ed a e ec and f he ea ch and
ei e f hi e nal effec if ame a d ne me nine een h af e he c mmi i n f he c ime. T
C .C ,
R M ,
.T .T
, . T
.P ( ), S . 5, R 113 1985 R C P

. I , P .P ,
/
 . W P .P
M , . T . O ,
. T
, .T Pe le . Cendana
,
.T .
Same; Same; The illegali f he a an le a e cann de i e he ae f i igh ec e he
g il hen all he fac n ec d in hei c l abili . H , , ,
M . H ,
M , , i.e., .45 .
A A C , -
C ,
. A ,
.
C iminal La ; M de ; T eache ; Whe e eache n ade a el ed, acc ed c ld nl be c n ic ed f
h micide. W ,

703

. 231, A 22, 1994 703

Peo le . Manl l

,
A .I ,
.T
A .I
A
.C , A .45 . S
- .I ,M
S A S . E
M , , .T
,
.H , .
Same; C n i ac ; Se led i he le ha nei he j in n im l ane ac i n e ei a fficien indici m
f c n i ac . T A .S
e e .T
M , .A M
. W
.H , M S A .T
, .
Same; Inde e mina e Sen ence La ; Rei e a i n habi ali ba a c n ic f m a ailing f he i i n
f he Inde e mina e Sen ence La . A D S ,
, ei e a i n
(10) ,
, I S L .

PETITION for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

The S lici Gene al for plaintiff-appellee.
Cel P. De La Ala for accused-appellants.
704

/
704 C A A D
Peo le . Manl l

BELLOSILLO, J.:

GERARDO ALFARO, a NARCOM agent, was stabbed and shot with his service pistol in a drinking
spree. He died in the hospital the following da . His drinking partners, Rolando Manlulu and Dante
Samson, were haled to court for his violent death.
The prosecution charges that Manlulu and Samson conspired in the murder of Agent Alfaro. The
accused on the other hand invoke self-defense. The also insist that the non-issuance of a search
warrant and warrant of arrest should nullif their arrest and consequentl exclude from judicial
consideration the evidence thus obtained.
But the trial court was not convinced. It found accused Dante Samson and Rolando Manlulu
guilt be ond reasonable doubt as principals in the crime of Murder defined and penali ed under
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code with the mitigating circumstance of voluntar surrender on the
part of Dante Samson and1no mitigating circumstance modif ing the commission of the offense on the
part of Rolando Manlulu. As a result, accused Dante Samson was sentenced to a prison term of ten
(10) ears and one (1) da of i i n ma , as minimum to seventeen (17) ears, four (4) months and
one (1) da of ecl i n em al, as maximum, while accused Rolando Manlulu, to twelve (12) ears,
five (5) months and eleven (11) da s of ecl i n em al, as minimum, to eighteen (18) ears, eight
(8) months and one (1) da of ecl i n e e a as maximum. The were also sentenced jointl to
indemnif the offended part P30,000.00 as compensator damages and P10,410.00 for
hospitali ation and funeral expenses, and to pa the costs.
Upon review, the appellate court raised their penalties to ecl i n e e a and certified
2
the case
to this Court pursuant to Sec. 13, Rule 124, of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure.

_______________
1 Decision penned by Judge Elisa R. Israel, Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 4, p. 13.
2 Decision penned by Justice Consuelo Ynares Santiago, concurred in by Justices Ricardo L. Pronove, Jr. (Chairman), and
Nicolas P. Lapeña, Jr., Fifteenth Division, Court of Appeals.

705

. 231, A 22, 1994 705

Peo le . Manl l

Testif ing for the prosecution, Wall Manlapa , a.k.a. Crisanto Meneses, narrated that at around ten
o clock in the evening of 29 Ma 1986, he and accused Dante Samson and Rolando Manlulu were
having a drinking spree in an alle along Quirino Avenue, Paco, Manila. The were later joined b
Agent Gerardo Alfaro who had a .45 cal. 3pistol tucked to his waist. When Alfaro arrived he blurted
out, Di ma k maka al a aking a . At twelve o clock midnight, the group transferred in front
of the house of Manlapa and continued to drink. There Samson suddenl stabbed 4
Alfaro in the chest
with a 6-inch double-bladed knife while boasting, Da 5
a a i manahimik na. Alfaro at this time
was somewhat bent because he was alread drunk. Manlulu then followed suit and stabbed Alfaro
in the abdomen several times with an ice pick the used to chip ice. Samson grabbed the .45 cal.
service pistol of Alfaro and shot him in the neck. When Alfaro slumped on the pavement, both
accused fled, with Samson holding6Alfaro s handgun. After a few seconds, both accused returned and
got Alfaro s wristwatch and wallet.
Noel Pagco, another witness for the prosecution, recounted that at the time of the shooting he was
outside the alle where the accused and the deceased were drinking. After hearing a gunshot coming
from the direction of the alle , he saw Dante Samson and Rolando Manlulu coming out the alle , the
former tucking a gun in his waist and sporting a watch on his right wrist, and the latter holding an
ice pick.
/
 As alread adverted to, both accused invoke self-defense. According to Samson, while the were
drinking, and after taking eki in , Alfaro said he had a prospect and invited them to go with
him. Thinking that prospect meant the were going to rob somebod , Samson excused himself b
sa ing that he had just been released from prison, and had et to fetch his wife. Alfaro, apparentl
resenting Samson s unwillingness to join them, drew his gun and pointed it to Samson who parried it
sa ing: Pa e,

_______________
3 TSN, 7 September 1987, p. 3, 22 December 1986, pp. 17-20.
4 Id., pp. 6-9.
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid.
7 Id., 7
April 1987, pp. 3-8.
 A prohibited drug distributed by Alfaro.

706

706 C A A D
Peo le . Manl l

ala a ng bi an ng gan an. Baka m k i an. But Alfaro repeatedl pointed the gun to him.
Ever time he did, Samson would push the gun aside. Fearful that it might go off, he held the gun
and tried to ward it off, resulting in a struggle for its possession. He got hold of the ice pick on top of
the drum and stabbed Alfaro instinctivel . Manlapa tried to separate them; as a consequence,
Samson dropped the ice pick. As Samson and Alfaro continued to wrestle for the possession of the
gun, the fell on the ground and the gun accidentall went off hitting Alfaro in the neck. Rattled,
Samson immediatel fled. He then fetched his wife from Malate, proceeded to Pasa Cit , and sent
word to his father who later accompanied him to surrender to Capt. Pring of the Homicide Division of
the Western Police District. When he fled, he left behind Alfaro s gun.
Rolando Manlulu corroborated the testimon of his co-accused. He added that he picked up the ice
pick when it fell, and fearing that he might be the next victim should Alfaro succeed in shooting
Samson, he (Manlulu) stabbed Alfaro several times with the ice pick, then dropped it, and ran awa .
He looked 10
back and saw Samson and Alfaro fall on the pavement. Almost simultaneousl , the gun
went off.
Patrolman Re naldo Pere recounted that at around seven o clock in the evening of 30 Ma 1986
he, together with some other officers, arrested Manlulu on the information given b Manlapa . He
said that
11
he sei ed from Manlulu the .45 cal. pistol and Casio wristwatch said to belong to
Alfaro, and that Manlulu verball confessed to the commission of the crime. Patrolman Pere
however admitted on cross-examination that when he arrested Manlulu and sei ed from him the
handgun as well as the wristwatch, he (Pere ) was not with an warrant nor did he inform the
accused of the latter12
s right to counsel. Pere added that at that time Manlulu was under the
influence of liquor.
Dr. Marcial Ce ido, Medico-Legal Officer of the Western Police District, confirmed that Alfaro
sustained nine (9) wounds,

_______________

 TSN, 7 September 1987, pp. 9-16.

10 Id., 27 October 1987, pp. 13-18.
11 Id., 24 February 1987, pp. 4-5.
12 Id., pp. 13-15.

707

. 231, A 22, 1994 707

/
 Peo le . Manl l

four (4) of them fatal, i.e., a gunshot wound in the neck, a penetrating stab
13
wound probabl caused b
a bladed weapon, and two (2) stab wounds probabl caused b an ice pick.
In this appeal, accused Manlulu and Samson would want us to believe, first, in their version of the
incident, and next, that the acted in self-defense.
The account of the appellants does not inspire belief. A review of the testimon of Manlapa , who
admittedl had drunk a little too much, reveals that his stor tallies not onl with some accounts of
accused Samson and Manlulu but also with the findings of Dr. Ce ido. Hence, except for the actual
attack on the victim, the testimonies of Samson and Manlulu square with that of Manlapa , including
the conversation that took place. Thus we give credence to the testimon of Manlapa that Samson
used a bladed weapon and not an ice pick in stabbing Alfaro, contrar to what Samson would want us
to believe. This version of Manlapa is consistent with the necrops report of Dr. Ce ido which states
that the deceased had a penetrating stab wound which could have been caused b a bladed weapon.
That Manlulu according to Manlapa used an ice pick in repeatedl stabbing Alfaro was not onl
admitted b Manlulu on the witness stand but is confirmed likewise b the medical findings of Dr.
Ce ido.
If Manlapa was indeed too drunk to recall the events that transpired before the actual killing,
then in all probabilit he could not have remembered the weapons used b the accused. Certainl ,
e ewitness Manlapa could not have been so drunk as to muddle those incidents which impute guilt
to the accused and recall onl those which are consistent with their innocence.
Similarl , we cannot disregard those portions of the testimonies of the two accused which tend to
confirm the narration of Manlapa . Expectedl , the accused will refute the statements tending to
establish their culpabilit . Hence, the have to differ in some respects from the narration of
Manlapa . Since it appears from the testimon of Manlapa that he had not et reached that degree
of intoxication where he would have otherwise lost control of his mental faculties, we find his version
to be credible as it conforms with the autops report and admissions of

_______________
13 Id., 6 April 1987, pp. 5-8.

70

708 C A A D
Peo le . Manl l
14
both accused. Thus, we sustain the factual findings of the trial court and reject the version of the
defense. But, even if we consider the theor of the accused thus far if onl to satisf them, still the
cannot elude the consequences of their felonious acts. B invoking self-defense, the accused admit
killing Alfaro. The burden of proof is thus shifted to them.15Their dut now is to establish b clear and
convincing evidence the lawful justification for the killing. In this regard, the have miserabl failed.
The three (3) requisites for self-defense are: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2)
reasonable necessit of the means emplo ed to prevent16 or repel it; and, (3) lack of sufficient
provocation on the part of the person defending himself. For self-defense to prosper, it must be
positivel shown that there was a previous unlawful and unprovoked attack that placed the life of the
accused in danger which forced him to inflict more or 1less severe wounds upon his assailant,
emplo ing therefore reasonable means to resist said attack.
Here, at the outset, the two accused have alread failed to show that there was unlawful
aggression on the part of Alfaro. A gun aimed at the accused, without more, is insufficient to prove
unlawful aggression. For unlawful aggression to be appreciated in self-defense, there must be an
actual, sudden and unexpected
1
attack or imminent danger thereof, and not merel a threatening or
intimidating attitude.

/
 Even the means emplo ed to repel or prevent the supposed attack was not reasonable. For, even if
we disregard the gunshot wound which Samson claims to have resulted from an accidental firing, the
victim also suffered seven other stab wounds, three of

_______________
14 People v. Molina, G.R. No. 59436, 28 August 1992, 213 SCRA 52.
15 People v. Boniao, G.R. No. 100800, 27 January 1993,  217 SCRA 653;  People v. Mindac,  G.R. No. 83030, 14 December
1992, 216 SCRA 558.
16 Par. 1, Art. 11, The Revised Penal Code.
17 People v. Amania, G.R. No. 97612, 23 March 1993, 220 SCRA 347.
1  People v. Sala ar, G.R. No. 84391, 7 April 1993, 221 SCRA 170, citing People v. Rey, G.R. No. 80089, 13 April 1989, 172

SCRA 149 and People v. Bayocot, G.R. No. 55285, 28 June 1989, 174 SCRA 285.

70

. 231, A 22, 1994 709

Peo le . Manl l

which were fatal, one of which was admittedl inflicted b Samson, while the other two, b accused
Manlulu. Definitel , it was not necessar to stab, more so repeatedl , the victim. Considering their
relative positions as the drank each within the other s reach all that was necessar was for the
two accused to band together and overpower the lone victim with their bare hands, assuming the
deceased was indeed pointing his gun at one of them. A stab wound ma not necessaril be fatal and
thus enable the victim to fire his gun. But a firm grasp b the two accused of the victim s arm holding
the gun, or of the gun itself, could prevent the victim from shooting them. At an rate, the number of
wounds suffered b 1Alfaro indicates a determined effort of both accused to kill the victim, which
negates self-defense. 20
Furthermore, their flight from the scene of the crime is a strong indication of their guilt. Indeed,
a righteous individual will not cower in fear and unabashedl admit the killing at the earliest
opportunit if he were morall justified in so doing. A belated plea suggests that it is 21
false and onl
an afterthought made as a last ditch effort to avoid the consequences of the crime. If the accused
honestl believed that their acts constituted self-defense against the unlawful aggression of the
victim, the should have reported the incident to the police, instead of 22escaping and avoiding the
authorities until the were either arrested or prevailed upon to surrender.
The reliance of the accused on the Constitution however is warranted. Certainl , the police
authorities should have first obtained a warrant for the arrest of accused Rolando Manlulu, and for
the search and sei ure of his personal effects. The killing took place at one o clock in the morning. The
arrest and the consequent search and sei ure came at around seven o clock that evening, some
nineteen hours later. This instance cannot come within the purview of a valid warrantless arrest.
Paragraph (b),

_______________
1  See People v. Sagadsad, G.R. No. 88042, 13 November 1992, 215 SCRA 641.
20 People v. Rivera, G.R. No. 101798, 10 May 1993, 221 SCRA 647; People v. Molina, G.R. No. 59436, 28 August 1992, 213
SCRA 52.
21 People v. Sala ar, see Note 18.
22 See Note 20, Ibid.

710

710 C A A D
Peo le . Manl l

/
Sec. 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that the arresting officer must
have personal knowledge of an offense which has in fact just been committed. In the instant case,
neither did Pat. Pere have personal knowledge, nor was the offense in fact just been committed.
While Pat. Pere ma have personall gathered the information which led to the arrest of Manlulu,
that is not enough. The law requires personal knowledge. Obviousl , personal gathering of
information is different from personal knowledge. The rule requires that the arrest immediatel
follows the commission 23of the offense, not some nineteen hours later. This is not an different
from Pe le . Cendana where the accused was arrested one da after the killing of the victim, and
onl on the basis of information obtained b the police officers. There we said that the circumstances
clearl belie a lawful warrantless arrest.
However, the flaw, fatal as it ma be, becomes moot in view of the e ewitness account of Manlapa
which we find to be credible. Hence, in spite of the nullification of the arrest of accused Manlulu, and
the exclusion of real evidence, i.e., the .45 cal. service pistol of Agent Alfaro and his Casio wristwatch,
as well as his extra-judicial confession which was taken in violation of the provisions of the
Constitution, still the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the accused be ond reasonable doubt.
After all, the illegalit of the warrantless arrest cannot deprive 24
the state of its right to prosecute the
guilt when all other facts on record point to their culpabilit .
While we confirm the factual findings of the trial court, which were affirmed b the appellate
court, we nevertheless differ from the conclusions drawn that treacher and conspirac attended the
killing of Alfaro. Indeed, there is serious doubt as to whether treacher could be appreciated against
the two accused. There is nothing on record to show that both accused deliberatel emplo ed means
tending to insure the killing of Alfaro without risk to themselves arising from the defense which the
latter might make. It must be noted that Alfaro set the mood of the evening

______________
23 G.R. No. 84715, 17 October 1990, 190 SCRA 538.
24 People v. Briones, G.R. No. 90319, 15 October 1991, 202 SCRA 708.

711

. 231, A 22, 1994 711

Peo le . Manl l

with a threatening tone that someone in the group was provoking him. Clearl , the attack on Alfaro
who was then armed with a .45 cal. revolver b Samson who on the other hand was merel armed
with a knife could not have been so sudden as to catch the former off-guard. In fact, Manlapa
testified
25
that after Samson s initial attack on Alfaro the latter was even able to push Samson
back. Even Manlulu, who impulsivel stabbed the victim, onl picked up the ice pick the were using
to chip ice. Taking into account the attendant circumstances, our minds cannot rest eas in
appreciating the aggravating circumstance of treacher . Hence, the two accused ma onl be
convicted of simple homicide.
There was no conspirac likewise in the killing of Alfaro. Settled
26
is the rule that neither joint nor
simultaneous action e e is a sufficient indicium of conspirac . The evidence shows that it was the
victim who chanced upon Manlapa and the two accused drinking, and decided to join them. Accused
Manlulu was not even armed when he went to the drinking spree. We have often said that conspirac
must be established be ond reasonable doubt. Here, the prosecution failed to show that Manlulu and
Samson conspired to kill Alfaro. There being no conspirac
2
, each is liable for his own acts.
The penalt for homicide is ecl i n em al the range of which is twelve (12) ears and one (1)
da to twent (20) ears. Appl ing the Indeterminate Sentence Law to accused Rolando Manlulu,
there being no mitigating nor aggravating circumstance, the maximum of his penalt shall be taken
from the medium period of ecl i n em al, which is fourteen (14) ears, eight (8) months and one
(1) da to seventeen (17) ears and four (4) months, while the minimum shall be taken from the
penalt next lower in degree, which is i i n ma , the range of which is six (6) ears and one (1)
da to twelve (12) ears, in an of its periods.
/
 As regards accused Dante Samson, although he is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of
voluntar surrender, the same is

_______________
25 TSN, 22 December 1986, p. 7.
26 Peoplev. Regular, No. L-38674, 30 September 1981, 108 SCRA 23, citing U.S. v. Magcomot, 13 Phil. 386  and  People v.
Caballero, 53 Phil. 585.
27 Art. 249, The Revised Penal Code.

712

712 C A A D
Peo le . Manl l

offset2 b ei e a i n or habitualit he having previousl been convicted once of robber and thrice of
theft within ten (10) ears prior to this incident, each time serving sentence therefor,
2
which further
bars him from availing of the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Consequentl , he
should be sentenced to ecl i n em almedium the range of which is fourteen (14) ears, eight (8)
months and one (1) da to seventeen (17) ears and four (4) months. Furthermore, 30
being a habitual
delinquent as defined in the last paragraph of Art. 62 of The Revised Penal Code, he should serve
31
an
additional penalt within the range of i i n ma maximum to ecl i n em alminimum. And,
as correctl determined b the appellate court, the civil liabilit of both accused is increased from
P30,000.00 to P50,000.00. In addition, both accused are liable to indemnif the heirs of their victim in
the amount of P10,410.00 for hospitali ation and funeral expenses.
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is modified as follows:

(a) ROLANDO MANLULU is found guilt of HOMICIDE and is sentenced to an indeterminate

prison term of eight (8) ears, two (2) months and one (1) da of i i n ma medium, as
minimum, to fourteen (14) ears, eight (8) months and one (1) da of ecl i n
em al medium, as maximum;
(b) DANTE SAMSON is found guilt of HOMICIDE and is

_______________
2  Accused Dante Samson first served sentence for robbery on 29 January 1975 and was paroled on 11 July 1975, then

imprisoned for theft on 31 October 1979 and discharged on 6 April 1980, then again committed to prison for simple theft on 8
October 1980 and discharged on 13 May 1982, and finally recommitted for theft on 18 April 1983 and discharged on 23
September 1983; Exhs. “S and “S-1 (Records, pp. 11-12) and TSN, 5 October 1987, pp. 5-6.
2  Sec. 2, Act No. 4103, as amended.
30 The last paragraph of Art. 62 of The Revised Penal Code reads:

“For purposes of this article, a person shall be deemed to be habitual delinquent, if within a period often years from the date
of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robo, hurto, estafa, or falsification, he is
found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener.
31 Par. 5(c), Art. 62, The Revised Penal Code.

713

. 231, A 22, 1994 713

Lo en ana Food Co o a ion . Co of A eal

sentenced to a straight prison term of fourteen (14) ears, ten (10) months and twent (20)
da s of ecl i n em al medium and, for being a habitual delinquent, is ordered to serve an
additional penalt of ten (10) ears and one (1) da of i i n ma maximum; and

/
 (c) ROLANDO MANLULU and DANTE SAMSON are directed jointl and severall to pa the
heirs of Gerardo Alfaro the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnit and P10,410.00 as death
and funeral expenses, with costs.

SO ORDERED.

C (Chai man), Da ide, J ., Q ia n and Ka nan, JJ., concur.

A ealed j dgmen m dified.

No e . A procedure wherein members of a raiding part can roam around the raided premises
unaccompanied b an witness is violative of both the spirit and the letter of the law (Pe le .
Ge m nd , 219 SCRA 743 [1993]).
Although the burden of evidence had shifted to the defense for having invoked self-defense, still
the burden of proof lies with the prosecution (Pe le . Amania, 220 SCRA 347 [1993]).

o0o